CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Smt. Neelam Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Raipur – Respondent
1. This is plaintiff's first appeal under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (for brevity 'the CPC') challenging the judgment and decree dated 6-1-2009 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Raipur, in civil suit No.13 - A / 2006 whereby and whereunder the appellant / plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
2. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration for restraining the defendant - Municipal Corporation, Raipur (for brevity 'the Corporation'), not to demolish the building constructed by her on the land owned and possessed by her bearing khasra No.221/10 and 221/14 situated at village Mathpuraina, Tahsil & District Raipur. Plaintiff also prayed that the said part of the building which has already been damaged by the Corporation be rebuild and compensate the plaintiff with further prayer for declaration that the memo issued by the Zone - 6 of the Corporation dated 1-5-2006 treating the plaintiff as encroacher of the Government land, is illegal and contrary to law.
3. According to the plaintiff she is the owner in possession of land bearing khasra No.221/10 area 0.485 hectares and khasra No.221/14 area 0.324 hecta
[None identified. No cases contain keywords or phrases indicating they have been overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law.]
Hari Ram VS State of Haryana - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3459: No keywords or phrases (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized, overruled) indicating judicial treatment by subsequent decisions. The text discusses directives under the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, but provides no evidence of how this case has been treated.
Firoj Khan S/o Salim Khan vs State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 37950: No treatment indicators present. The snippet states a legal principle on standing to appeal ("Only parties aggrieved... mere psychological injury is insufficient"), but lacks any reference to how this case has been treated in later decisions.
Amit Pratap Singh Kushwah vs State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 530: No treatment indicators. The text describes procedural facts involving a complaint forwarded by the Collector to the Chief Municipal Officer and subsequent communications, with no language suggesting judicial treatment patterns.
LAXMAN SINGH VS JAGANNATH - 1999 0 Supreme(MP) 689: No treatment indicators. The snippet articulates a procedural rule under CPC ("A suit for possession... Order 7, Rule 3"), but contains no phrases indicating subsequent treatment.
[None. All cases lack clear treatment indicators, so they are objectively categorized under "no_treatment_indicated" rather than uncertain, as no ambiguous language (e.g., partial criticism or questioning) is present.]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.